Recent events

GlynD

emmett123 wrote: »

i don't think republicans necessarily listen to what people have to say, sure when Pope John Paul II came in the 70s he asked "on his bended knee" for the provos to turn away from violence, and they ignored him.

these dissident are able to operate due to some degree of community support, and i suspect that support is growing as people in their communities watch the pretty lame efforts of SF in stormont and SF's easy acceptance of Thatcherite Tory social policies.

There is that mentality I agree. Some republicans are, in their own minds, dedicated to unity and can't see past that for any reason. I don't understand it but it's true.

I also agree there is some degree of community support although that is very significantly smaller than was enjoyed by PIRA because the dissidents don't have the numbers or the local clout to enforce support outwith their own followers.

I find your comments confusing about SF however and I'd like to know how you come by your opinions because I see SF as doing a pretty good job by their own mandate. In my view they're certainly doing more than their unionist counterparts. They're also keeping the goal of unity very much at the top of their agenda even if they need to go down the federalist road to achieve it.

I can't understand why you think SF's policies are Thatcherite either. It was Labour who finally clinched the deal. Surely SF policies would be closer to those? I mean Labour were in power for a long time.

I can also understand why diehard republicans would see SF's co-operation in the assembly as a sellout but that part of the community needs representation. Coming from the other side of the fence I too see much to complain about and I have read a lot in an attempt to understand the nationalist and republican viewpoints because I think it's absolutely necessary to know how we can work together. I find it very hard to consider people like MMG and GA as legitimate politicians but I have engaged with local SF representatives because I feel that is the democratic thing to do.

Things won't get better until we're all singing from the same hymn sheet and I feel that dissidents should engage politically rather than resorting to the gun and bomb when the vast majority of the people of this nation have said they don't want violence.

emmett123

GlynD wrote: »

There is that mentality I agree. Some republicans are, in their own minds, dedicated to unity and can't see past that for any reason. I don't understand it but it's true.

I also agree there is some degree of community support although that is very significantly smaller than was enjoyed by PIRA because the dissidents don't have the numbers or the local clout to enforce support outwith their own followers.

I find your comments confusing about SF however and I'd like to know how you come by your opinions because I see SF as doing a pretty good job by their own mandate. In my view they're certainly doing more than their unionist counterparts. They're also keeping the goal of unity very much at the top of their agenda even if they need to go down the federalist road to achieve it.

I can't understand why you think SF's policies are Thatcherite either. It was Labour who finally clinched the deal. Surely SF policies would be closer to those? I mean Labour were in power for a long time.

I can also understand why diehard republicans would see SF's co-operation in the assembly as a sellout but that part of the community needs representation. Coming from the other side of the fence I too see much to complain about and I have read a lot in an attempt to understand the nationalist and republican viewpoints because I think it's absolutely necessary to know how we can work together. I find it very hard to consider people like MMG and GA as legitimate politicians but I have engaged with local SF representatives because I feel that is the democratic thing to do.

Things won't get better until we're all singing from the same hymn sheet and I feel that dissidents should engage politically rather than resorting to the gun and bomb when the vast majority of the people of this nation have said they don't want violence.

thanks for your long analysis, i don't know if i have the strength to do the same on a Sunday afternoon!

SF accepting thatcherite social policies? well, most recently SF (along with other parties) accepted "welfare to work" schemes, brain child of the English Tories. the result of which is that people who are on the dole are expected to work now for thier dole, the main beneficiaries of this being those businessmen who get govt paid workers and the underlining narrative being that those people on the dole are on the dole due to their own fault, and that really they are lazy and don't want to get a job. This type of attitude i would not expect from a party who claim James Connolly as a hero.

I also watch as they applaud David Cameron while he tells foreign investors to come here, despite it being shown that those investors that do bring with low quality. minimum wage call center style jobs.

They have also presided over our universities double the price of tuition fees, accepting without question the example of the CON/DEM govt in London.

John O' Dowd might complain about grammar schools but as SF education minister he has reduced the funding given to schools, with 100s rural primaries now likely to close. What is this but a Thatcherite policy?

GlynD

emmett123 wrote: »

thanks for your long analysis, i don't know if i have the strength to do the same on a Sunday afternoon!

SF accepting thatcherite social policies? well, most recently SF (along with other parties) accepted "welfare to work" schemes, brain child of the English Tories. the result of which is that people who are on the dole are expected to work now for thier dole, the main beneficiaries of this being those businessmen who get govt paid workers and the underlining narrative being that those people on the dole are on the dole due to their own fault, and that really they are lazy and don't want to get a job. This type of attitude i would not expect from a party who claim James Connolly as a hero.

I also watch as they applaud David Cameron while he tells foreign investors to come here, despite it being shown that those investors that do bring with low quality. minimum wage call center style jobs.

They have also presided over our universities double the price of tuition fees, accepting without question the example of the CON/DEM govt in London.

John O' Dowd might complain about grammar schools but as SF education minister he has reduced the funding given to schools, with 100s rural primaries now likely to close. What is this but a Thatcherite policy?

I can see where you're coming from now. Sorry if this is putting a strain on the oul grey matter - do you have a few residual fumes in there today?

I actually agree with making some people on the dole work for their money. With qualification though, but we all know there are people who are just workshy.

I can see why you would lament the loss of socialist policies although I think it's worth noting that Connolly's politics were marginalised up to and including 1916 and he never really had grass roots support from the IRB. Unfortunately too, and as we know, he didn't live long enough for us to see if he'd have been elected to the 1st or 2nd Dail and what, if any, use his policies would have been to the emergent Free State.

I can see why John O'Dowd's hand is being forced by austerity but can well understand how some people who expect more from SF would view that on occasions. My own complaint is that he is not pushing more integrated education establishments through and watering down those which are being created. I also think he needs to take serious issue with the churches, particularly the RC church to get rid of religious schools and make integrated education the norm here.

From your comment however I would judge that both sides of the political divide have complaints about their representation in Stormont and Westminster. I think that's only to be expected in the unusual situation we have. I don't know if you'd agree but I think the only way forward is to keep on pressing for what we want and someday we're going to meet in the middle - if we keep at it.

And if we get rid of political violence.

Certainly some of this may mirror Thatcher's policies but I don't see it as Thatcherism. More austerity driven than monetarism.

emmett123

GlynD wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from now. Sorry if this is putting a strain on the oul grey matter - do you have a few residual fumes in there today?

I actually agree with making some people on the dole work for their money. With qualification though, but we all know there are people who are just workshy.

I can see why you would lament the loss of socialist policies although I think it's worth noting that Connolly's politics were marginalised up to and including 1916 and he never really had grass roots support from the IRB. Unfortunately too, and as we know, he didn't live long enough for us to see if he'd have been elected to the 1st or 2nd Dail and what, if any, use his policies would have been to the emergent Free State.

I can see why John O'Dowd's hand is being forced by austerity but can well understand how some people who expect more from SF would view that on occasions. My own complaint is that he is not pushing more integrated education establishments through and watering down those which are being created. I also think he needs to take serious issue with the churches, particularly the RC church to get rid of religious schools and make integrated education the norm here.

From your comment however I would judge that both sides of the political divide have complaints about their representation in Stormont and Westminster. I think that's only to be expected in the unusual situation we have. I don't know if you'd agree but I think the only way forward is to keep on pressing for what we want and someday we're going to meet in the middle - if we keep at it.

And if we get rid of political violence.

Certainly some of this may mirror Thatcher's policies but I don't see it as Thatcherism. More austerity driven than monetarism.

i totally agree with you on the schools issue. the amount of time and energy that has been wasted on grammar/secondary school debate whilst integrated is virtually ignored. I know that locally a lot of peace money/ council money is being spent on bringing catholic and protestant pupils together on projects. whilst the intention is good, it is money that is down the drain while separate schools remains. i recall while i was at school, Educational for Mutual Understanding was the vogue and 20 years later they are still on with the cross community projects, but ultimately integrated schools are the greatest solution.

i think that a party like SF who claim to be revolutionary and radical, its not good enough for them to accept the policies of a Tory government. I would have expected to see some radicalism, but instead i see mild acceptance.

I don't accept either that austerity is a response to financially straitened times. I believe that it is ideologically motivated, that it is on purpose, that government are accustoming people to living with a poorer standard of living. there is a growing gap between rich and poor, the poor are poorer now than they were 40 years ago. It is unfortunate that no party on the hill are prepared to fight against that.

I never had any expectation of self satisfied middle class parties of the DUP/SDLP and UUP, but at least SF dressed up in the lingo of social justice. It makes their tepid performance in Stormont all the more pathetic.

mezza101

emmett123 wrote: »

but ultimately integrated schools are the greatest solution.

but we dont live on fantasy island, sf would like more irish speaking schools, hardly integration.................not saying people shouldnt have the right to educate themselves in irish speaking schools but just waking you up from your dream

emmett123

mezza101 wrote: »

but we dont live on fantasy island, sf would like more irish speaking schools, hardly integration.................not saying people shouldnt have the right to educate themselves in irish speaking schools but just waking you up from your dream

oh i know that in this place, the chances of total integration happening is slim. but its amusing that how government wrings its hand about forcing integration, and allow the churches have their own school etc, but the same government is not as easygoing and ineffective when come to tax or rates. if you don't abide by the law there, you will soon have them knocking your door .

GlynD

Total integration is what is needed, both in schools and in public housing. That will both put us back where we were in the mid 60's in terms of community relations and enhance future relations because kids won't grown up with grudges.

I see no reason why Irish can't be on the curriculum of integrated schools - as a choice, not mandatory. There will need to be separate RE classes, as there was in my day, so why not separate language classes, as there also was in my day?

tara747

emmett123 wrote: »

i totally agree with you on the schools issue. the amount of time and energy that has been wasted on grammar/secondary school debate whilst integrated is virtually ignored. I know that locally a lot of peace money/ council money is being spent on bringing catholic and protestant pupils together on projects. whilst the intention is good, it is money that is down the drain while separate schools remains. i recall while i was at school, Educational for Mutual Understanding was the vogue and 20 years later they are still on with the cross community projects, but ultimately integrated schools are the greatest solution.

i think that a party like SF who claim to be revolutionary and radical, its not good enough for them to accept the policies of a Tory government. I would have expected to see some radicalism, but instead i see mild acceptance.

I don't accept either that austerity is a response to financially straitened times. I believe that it is ideologically motivated, that it is on purpose, that government are accustoming people to living with a poorer standard of living. there is a growing gap between rich and poor, the poor are poorer now than they were 40 years ago. It is unfortunate that no party on the hill are prepared to fight against that.

I never had any expectation of self satisfied middle class parties of the DUP/SDLP and UUP, but at least SF dressed up in the lingo of social justice. It makes their tepid performance in Stormont all the more pathetic.

Do you have statistics to back up this claim?

There's relative poverty and absolute poverty. I'd be very interested to see how many are in absolute poverty.

GlynD wrote: »

Still, as one wee woman in Derry said on the news: we don't want to go back to those times. Why oh why will these people not accept the will of the Irish people and stop their nonsense?

Well said.

GlynD

tara747 wrote: »

Do you have statistics to back up this claim?

There's relative poverty and absolute poverty. I'd be very interested to see how many are in absolute poverty.

Well said.

I looked at Emmet's post and thought: the man's entitled to his opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it.

I've no wish to speak for him but he seems like a disillusioned SF voter and I can see where he's coming from. Sf went into government with the burden of ideology and promised to make that reality. It's not so easy when you're there and there's always the added burden of mandatory power sharing which makes getting some legislation through an absolute nightmare.

I'm not a SF supporter, quite the opposite in fact, but as I've said before on other threads, for Northern Ireland to progress "Priam must kiss the hand of Achilles" and I'm prepared to do that and also do my best to understand the viewpoints of those who disagree with me.

lazer

GlynD wrote: »

Three murders in one week, all apparently related to dissident activity.

Shocking that this is going on in our society in 2013.

And the annoying security alerts on the M1 - 3 in one week